Can Skeptics be Believers & opposite?

[Kumar]

Believe what you will however that will not affect the fact that homeopathy has never been shown to work (as per its own premises).

I want to believe the same in view of that, I could not found clear scientific possibilities as yet, inspite of my best efforts here & there. But observations & experiances indicates, it non-placebo type of effects.

I apologise for any confusion I was parodying one of your posts, not to parody your English but your incomprehensible reasoning.

No,no I know my weakness in language here. I usually don't get this type of complaint at homeopathic sites & from Asians. I don't know, how Vikram is also unable to follow my language. Anyway, sorry.

I tried to see but nothing looks opposite to me. I tried to re-write but I could just do as under;

OLD; These are not opposite. You can't say that a skeptic don't believe in anything. But he just want to believe in style based on his beliefs & choices. Few skeptic can believe after getting some evidances by himself personally OR by scientists of his belief/choice OR by eve-witnesses of his accepted authorities OR by observations & experiances of his community/liked/believed people. Some other skeptics can believe in mass & well distributed observations & experiances but other may not. Some can believe in 'conventional systems' whereas others in traditional/alternative systems. Some may believe in few concepts of any religion/any system but may not believe in everything whereas other may not believe in anything of this religion/system--but still believe in their religion/system.

NEW; These are not opposite in meaning. You can't say a skeptic don't believe in anything but he only want to believe concepts with evidances confirmed either by him personally or by people to whom he believe as an authority(eg. modern scientists, pub-med links etc) for the same. He can also believe if people from modern system(his community) to whom, he can believe also certify that concept....In short, a skeptic can be skeptic or believer as per his beliefs, choice & findings.

 

[Kumar]

Re: Sure it may be a derail, but...

*Snip*
There is no actual ballance or equilibrium as proposed by these people, its nothing but a misconception. All systems within the universe are dynamic, changingwith time. Quite often what one sees as "natural ballance" (specially when it comes to ecosystems) is nothing but a Dt, an instant picture of an evolving system. One is usually not around for enough time to see the changes. If there were such "ballances" and "equilibriums" in the nature , then there would be no evolution of species, stars would not form from gas clouds to later become supernovas, black holes, neutron stars or white dwarves, no expansion of the universe...

Nature's balance is not thought to a static or fixed balance but it also changes as per the time. It starts with first creation & end with complete destruction. So whatever changes are required to achieve this goal, nature adjust as per the time. The main idea is that if it is in balance as per time & if we are not doing such things which may be leading us to the ultimate goal bit early.

But frankly, it is also indicated that we are just helpless & whatever is going on, is & can just be in accordance to nature's balance/on going system. We may just be comparing 'old & new' & so talking/fighting due to the same--as grandfather, father & son differ in opinions. The time phase can be "creative", if son agrees, adds or carry forward the work of his ancesstor's AND "destructive", if he contradict, go against, destruct their work & start or re-start new one from stage one.

 

[Kumar]

Disposing of "adverse, toxic and 'thought bad' concepts" does not necessarily mean that whatever is left is effective (I assume that's what you mean by "positive"). It will also leave us with stuff that has no effect whatsoever.

Atleast agree on placebo/belief/faith/E=mc^2 effects.

Vikram,

"Kumar, I'll be frank here. Your grasp of grammar, syntax and spelling is a little weak."

You can bend me on this basis. I am surprised that you also don't understand my language. Although it is not just little still I thougt 'indications can be sufficient to inteligent people'(as said) & meaning can be more important than language. Anyway, thanks for suggestion, I will try, but pls you also try..as it is bit late for me.

"A skeptic is able to distinguish between ordinary and extraordinary claims and demands evidence for the extraordinary ones. A believer is incapable of distinguishing between ordinary claims and extraordinary claims and thinks that the existence of ghosts is as likely as the existence of apples."

In other words, skeptic first dis-believe than see whereas believer first believe than see. It it ok?

In respect of 7 glasses of water in morning without cleaning teeth, some people suggest it. But I don't think it is well observed & experianced by mass..... Anyway, whether nature suggest cleaning of teeth?

 

[Kumar]

Apologies as I haven't read all the thread (I drifted off when everyone started debating homeopathy)....but surely the answer to the original question is Yes, of course skeptics can be believers.

I believe in penicillin because it has been scientifically proved to work. I believe in dreams as I have them. I believe in the fact that some people are double-jointed as I have witnessed some ridiculous positions in my time (ahem)....

I don't believe in ghosts though, or reflexology, or little aliens coming down in spaceships and abducting people....

The difference being that in order to believe, I have to have some sort of tangible proof and not just work on anecdotes and blind faith.

I can't see where the argument is....maybe I'm being a bit dim here, but thats the key difference between a skeptic and a woo in my eyes....they will believe things without having any form of proof or evidence and don't pursue rational thought processes. Referring to a 'believer' is meaningless without it being in context...

Hope that makes sense

Yes, this makes sense. I was also trying to indicate the same in my poor language. But skeptics may say, since you believe in dreams(see bolded letters in your post) you are not skeptic so duality. This is just your personal experiance which you ought to belive. But you can't show its evedances to other skeptics so invalid in their views.

What then will you say--true or false?

 

[Minkster]

Yes, this makes sense. I was also trying to indicate the same in my poor language. But skeptics may say, since you believe in dreams(see bolded letters in your post) you are not skeptic so duality. This is just your personal experiance which you ought to belive. But you can't show its evedances to other skeptics so invalid in their views.

What then will you say--true or false?

I think REM sleep state has at least been recognised as non-woo. Sure, I can't prove to anyone that I had a specific dream, but then no-one can 'prove' they have any thoughts inside their head....

Anyway, if anyone tried to dispel dreams as being 'invalid' then they would wipe out the reason that many people have for strange beliefs in the first place!, in fact - someone who tried to seriously suggest it would be more 'spinning bow tie' than the alien abductees and ghosthunters!

I see what you are saying, but I think there should be a distinction between something we generally recognise as real but perhaps don't fully understand (dreams) and something that has no credible evidence for whatsoever (woo stuff)

 

[Vikram]

In other words, skeptic first dis-believe than see whereas believer first believe than see. It it ok?

Skeptics approach every topic with the desire to see if there is any basis to it or not.

You claim that believers first believe and then see. I've consistently seen that to not be the case. Believers believe and then they REFUSE to "see". They are so convinced that they are right that they fail to see the loads and loads of evidence that demonstrate that their claim in invalid. For example: YOU. Homeopathy has, in multiple double-blinded randomized controlled trials, consistently been shown to be no more effective than placebo. But you keep on coming back again and again saying that homeopathy works, irrespective of what the evidence states. You are the perfect example of a believer, someone who will believe in something without questioning and then try to cook up ridiculous theories to demonstrate why it should work.

In any case, 'believing and then seeing' is a very dangerous thing. When you get a rapidly fatal disease like meningitis, will you turn to modern medicine with its repeatedly proven antibiotics or will you turn to homeopathy with its never-proven dilutions or will you turn to crystal therapy with its never-proven pieces of quartz? If you believe in everything, how will you make a decision? Or will you visit an astrologer and "believe" in what he tells you?

If you decide to believe in everything that presents itself to you, then you're basically betraying whatever intellect you might have. And contributing to making the world a very dangerous place by allowing frauds and cheats to roam free because you prefer to "believe". On the other hand, if a skeptical attitude is taken, only legitimate people will be allowed to practice medicine.

In respect of 7 glasses of water in morning without cleaning teeth, some people suggest it. But I don't think it is well observed & experianced by mass..... Anyway, whether nature suggest cleaning of teeth?

That's it! Kumar, this is my last post in this thread. You belong to a completely different mental world. If you think that it is even possible that 7 glasses of water a day can cure cancer and TB, then I truly wonder if you possess any intelligence at all. I'm beginning to realize that anything I type here is just a waste of my time.

By the way, does nature suggest wearing of clothes? Or surfing the internet?

I recommend you give up both of those activities right now and return to nature. Goodbye.

 

[Kumar]

I see what you are saying, but I think there should be a distinction between something we generally recognise as real but perhaps don't fully understand (dreams) and something that has no credible evidence for whatsoever (woo stuff)

That should be but who believe just in thoughts--they want evidance which is not there in case of dreams. If skeptic believes in dream than he may also have to believe in other thoughts, experiances & observations felt by many people but no scientifically valid evidance.

 

[Kumar]

Skeptics approach every topic with the desire to see if there is any basis to it or not.

You claim that believers first believe and then see. I've consistently seen that to not be the case. Believers believe and then they REFUSE to "see"....

This is not the case as you have moulded. Believer do belive first & then see, but he believe in mass existing system in well distributed people since long with least adversities. Take my case. I heard homeopathy & then TRS alike it. I felt no harm in trying. I tried. I felt some positive results. Then I pursued. Then I tried to understand it.......next you can understand. But if I would have heard about 'possibilities of adversities' I wouldn't had tried it without proper consultations. Moreover when one enter in belief of any such system--he knows & first understand its limitations. Since, we are discussing science of homeopathy or other unclear aspects, you can relate 'then see' with its unclear science.

 

[Jeff Corey]

... If skeptic believes in dream than he may also have to believe in other thoughts, experiances & observations felt by many people but no scientifically valid evidance.

No. Dreams can be measured (REM sleep) and that state is correlated with reports of dreaming. That has been well documented for over half a century.
The other stuff hasn't.

 

[Kumar]

No. Dreams can be measured (REM sleep) and that state is correlated with reports of dreaming. That has been well documented for over half a century.
The other stuff hasn't.

BSM has given some links of pub-med which tells that homeopathic effects were surveyed & noted. I don't have those links on hand, but probably he can provide here again. Some other links also tells about homeopathic effects, million of people are still there to witness & moreover the effects so felt by homeopathic community/patients do not resembles with other belief based or placebo type effects.

 

[Ashles]

BSM has given some links of pub-med which tells that homeopathic effects were surveyed & noted. I don't have those links on hand, but probably he can provide here again. Some other links also tells about homeopathic effects, million of people are still there to witness & moreover the effects so felt by homeopathic community/patients do not resembles with other belief based or placebo type effects.

Evidence?

Would the evidence come from thousands of people in India?

Would you like me to produce the health statistics for India again?

Or is it just anecdotal evidence of anecdotal evidence?

Real convincing.

 

[Jeff Corey]

BSM has given some links of pub-med which tells that homeopathic effects were surveyed & noted. I don't have those links on hand, but probably he can provide here again. Some other links also tells about homeopathic effects, million of people are still there to witness & moreover the effects so felt by homeopathic community/patients do not resembles with other belief based or placebo type effects.

So what is your point?
Do you actually have one?

 

[jmercer]

Cripes, Kumar, how MANY threads here are you trying to hijack and derail??? I'm up to 4 so far!

 

[Harlequin]

Definitely been some hijacking, but this one was actually started by Kumar.

 

[jmercer]

Oh. Yeah. Sure, just confuse me with facts. Hey, I just realized that he derailed his own thread - way to go, Kumar!

 

[Kumar]

Jeff,

It means, practical observations & experiances are there but may not be alike as you want.

Ashles,

Pls check with patients taking homeopathic treatments. Science couldn't yet develop suaitable measuring technology, which can check 'Prime Energy''s role in various energy based healing systems. Do you know what is the source of all fundamental forces & elementary particles & how it opretes?

jmercer,

Don't let yourself drail. Misses & weaknesses of science should fall within the range from Prime source of energy/matter to fundamental forces/elementary particles. It is yet a pending knowledge in science, yet to be found/known.

Harlequin,

Do you feel/find that 'believers' are so powerful that they can hijeck or drail your threads. Are they backed by some powerful & so thought as paranormal force?

 

[ilk]

I'm finding this very...interesting. I haven't been following Kumar for very long, but what do people think: Is he actually insane or is this just the language barrier causing problems?

 

[jmercer]

I have no idea, but it's... as you put it... interesting. Kind of like watching a train wreck as it occurs.

 

[PixyMisa]

Well, he's certainly opening new frontiers in the field of ignorance and delusion. But I don't think he's insane in anything but the vernacular sense. I've actually spent some time in discussions with someone who was under treatment for paranoid schizophrenia, and it was... Different.

No, I'm afraid that Kumar is sane. For what good that is.

 

[PixyMisa]

Science couldn't yet develop suaitable measuring technology, which can check 'Prime Energy''s role in various energy based healing systems.

That's because there is no such thing. Oh, and becayse those healing systems don't do anything.

Do you know what is the source of all fundamental forces & elementary particles & how it opretes?

No. But I know a hell of a lot more about it than you.

But then, so does a cabbage.

Don't let yourself drail. Misses & weaknesses of science should fall within the range from Prime source of energy/matter to fundamental forces/elementary particles. It is yet a pending knowledge in science, yet to be found/known.

No.

Do you feel/find that 'believers' are so powerful that they can hijeck or drail your threads.

It's not a function of believers, it's a function of voluble nitwits.

Are they backed by some powerful & so thought as paranormal force?

No.